Shraddha Walker case: Delhi court rejects objection to Poonawala's seating, says fair trial a must even for heinous crimes

 In an order reiterating that constitutional safeguards extend even to those accused of the most heinous crimes, a Delhi court hearing the Shraddha Walker murder case has rejected an objection to accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala sitting close to his lawyer during trial, holding that the right to a fair trial cannot be compromised by the gravity of the allegations.

The order was passed after the complainant's counsel protested against Poonawala being seated adjacent to the defence counsel during the recording of prosecution evidence, arguing that he should not be allowed to sit next to the advocates' desk. The court, however, dismissed the objection, observing that the seating arrangement was necessary to ensure effective communication between the accused and his lawyer during the proceedings.

Rejecting the request, Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi noted that a similar objection had been raised earlier during the trial and had already been dealt with. The judge said forcing the accused to sit in a corner of the courtroom would require the defence counsel to repeatedly move between the advocates' desk and the accused during witness examination, disrupting the proceedings.

The court also relied on Rule 14 of the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders, introduced in 2009, which provides that an accused in a criminal trial should ordinarily be permitted to remain seated unless required to stand for a specific purpose such as identification. The judge reproduced the rule in the order, observing that the existing practice itself recognises the rights of an accused during trial.

Making broader observations on criminal justice, the court stressed that the seriousness of the allegations against an accused cannot become a ground to dilute procedural safeguards.

“Be it accused, no matter for how grievous and heinous offence, he also has rights and the Apex Court has repeatedly held that neither accused can be denied a proper seating in the courtroom, nor a treatment which may reek of disgust, vengeance,” the judge observed.

The court further underlined that the criminal justice system is founded on the presumption of innocence and the guarantee of a fair trial.

“Above all the hallmarks of criminal jurisprudence of our country is the presumption of innocence, and an accused also has a right to fair trial. The right to fair trial inherently includes right and access to counsel,” the court said, adding that meaningful access to legal representation may require an accused to sit close enough to communicate with counsel during the proceedings.

Holding that the complainant's plea had no legal basis, the court described it as an unwarranted and unreasonable request and declined to alter the seating arrangement.

The order came while the court was recording the testimony of prosecution witness Inspector Sandeep Kumar, who was recalled after the filing of a second supplementary chargesheet. His examination-in-chief was completed, while his cross-examination has been deferred.

The court also took up an application filed by the prosecution seeking permission to record the evidence of officials from WhatsApp, Meta Platforms, Google, Gmail and Bumble through video conferencing under the Delhi High Court's Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. The defence sought time to respond, and the court granted two days to file its reply before arguments on the application.